an abstract of the thesis of interdisciplinary studies in

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

David B. Mills for the degree of Master of Arts in

Interdisciplinary Studies in the co-departments of Speech

Communication, Business Administration, and Apparel,

Interiors, Housing, and Merchandising presented on April 1,

1994.

Title: The Effect of Clothing Cues on Perceptions of

Personality Characteristics in Busines Settings

Abstract Approved:

Dr. Mary Jane Collier

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether

clothing influenced perceptions of personality

characteristics often associated with success in business

environments. Specifically, the study investigated the

effect of clothing on (a) perceptions of task-oriented

abilities of employees in a business setting, (b)

perceptions of relationship-oriented abilities of employees

in a business setting, and (c) perceptions of demographic-

oriented qualities (education levels and income levels) of

employees in a business setting.

Seventy-six Speech Communication students were used as

subjects for the study, 38 of whom were males and 38 of whom

were females. Subjects included six freshmen, sixteen

sophomores, seventeen juniors, 36 seniors, and one graduate

Redacted for Privacy

student. Ages varied from nineteen to 48, with a mean of

22.

Results indicated that formal clothing could be related

to perceptions of task-oriented abilities in a business

setting. However, neither formal clothing, nor casual

clothing was related to perceptions of relationship-oriented

abilities in a business setting. Finally, clothing could

also be related to perceptions of education and income in a

business setting.

Investigation of Clothing Cues Affecting Perceptions of Personality Characteristics in Business Settings

by

David B. Mills

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of

Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies

Completed April 1, 1994

Commencement June, 1995

APPROVED:

Pro4or of Speech Communication in charge of major

of ssor of Apparel, Interiors, Housing, Merchandise in charge of co-field

fessor of Business Ad m" istration in charge of field

Ch of department of Speech Communication

Date thesis is presented April 1, 1994

Typed by Researcher David B. Mills






Acknowledgments

The author wishes to express his deepest appreciation

to Dr. Mary Jane Collier, Associate Professor of Speech

Communication, and Dr. Leslie Davis Burns, Professor of

Apparel, Interiors, Housing, and Merchandising, for all

their guidance and availability which greatly aided in the

implementation and completion of this study.

Additional appreciation is extended to Dr. Courtney

Campbell, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, and Dr. John

Drexler, Associate Professor of Management and Marketing,

for their participation and commitment as committee members.

The author also wishes to express his appreciation to

his long-time friends who aided in the photography work for

this study: Brian Crum, Jeff Sailor, Mike Spreadbury, and

Steve Thomson.

Most importantly, the author wishes to thank his

parents: Dallice and Mary Mills, whose support made it

possible for the author to attend graduate school. Thank

you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. Introduction 1

Purpose of the Study 3

Theoretical Framework 3

Review of Literature 6

Social Perception 6

Categorization 14

Attributes & Attribution Theory 19

Impression Formation 26

Research Questions 33

Research Question One 34

Research Question Two 35

Research Question Three 35

II. Method 36

Design 36

Sample 37

Stimulus Photographs 38

Procedure 38

Manipulation Check 40

Analysis 41

III. Results & Discussion 42

Sex Differences for Relationship

Sex Differences for Demographic

Formal and Casual Clothing Comparison 42

Results 43

Additional Analysis 53

Sex Differences for Task Category 53

Category 54

Category 54

Discussion 55

Research Question One 55

Research Question Two 57

Research Question Three 59

IV. Implications 61

Applied Implications 61

Limitations of the Study 63

Future Research Recomendations 65

Bibliography 68

Appendix

Appendix A: Research Questionnaire 73

List of Tables

Table

1. Chi Square and Frequency Table

for Formal Dress of "Mark" and

"John"


Comparing Formal Clothing vs.

Casual Clothing



Casual Clothing in Task Category



Casual Clothing in Relationship

Category



Casual Clothing in Demographic

Category

Page

47

48

49

50

51

52



Casual Clothing by Sex

THE EFFECT OF CLOTHING CUES ON PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONALITY

CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED IN BUSINESS SETTINGS

Chapter I

Introduction

Sitting across from Pat in an airport terminal is a

man wearing a studded leather jacket, torn jeans, and

combat boots. As he combs his purple Mowhawk hairdo Pat

notices the man's two nose rings and ponders, "What a

loser!" Little does Pat know this "loser" is a concert

pianist and currently working on his PhD in Music. Pat

has just formed an impression of a stranger based upon

stereotypical biases from clothing cues.

Every day millions of people make such impressions.

Because clothing often represents the first stimulus cue

one notices about strangers, it is understandable that

impressions are formed based upon the type of clothing

individuals wear. Communicationists label this

phenomenon object language, and argue that clothing is a

set of non-verbal messages much in the same manner as

facial expressions (Meyer & Meyer, 1980). Persons are

able to make sense of messages by developing shared

meanings of clothing cues, such as a studded leather

jaCket representing rebellion or toughness.

2

Consequently, perceptions of object language include

inferences about individuals. Such inferences may

include attributions of social values, social status, or

intelligence.

However, are such inferences accurate perceptions

and specifically, are the meanings associated with types

of clothing cues always consistent with personality

traits of individuals wearing the clothing?

The concept of stereotyping individuals based upon

appearances is not new. Indeed, stereotyping is often

necessary in organizing stimuli in one's world (Heider,

1958). Without the process of stereotyping, individuals

would be overwhelmed by the vast stimuli encountered in

daily existence.

Much like the average person deciding what to wear

for the day, business executives must decide on clothing

policies in the work place. Traditionally, businesses

have been rather formal in dress codes, with men and

woman wearing suits and skirts respectively. Expecting

employees to be formal in garment style choices is based

on the goal of establishing an image of professionalism

and respectability to customers. However, does clothing

make the business person in the eyes of the customer? Do

clothing cues indicate personality and social traits

related to capabilities in business settings?

3

Purpose of the Study

Can clothing act as a source of personality

characteristics apart from other cues such as facial

expressions, or body language? Under controlled

conditions would subjects consistently prejudge one's

personality characteristics associated in business as

different if the only change in appearance is from

clothing? These were the fundamental questions of this

study.

Specifically, the purpose of this study was to

investigate if clothing would influence perceptions of

personality characteristics often associated with success

in business environments.

Theoretical Framework

The field of social psychology, with concentration

in social cognition, represented the theoretical

framework for this study. Within the discipline of

social cognition, four theories, often associated with

research investigating social cognition and clothing

cues, became the theoretical framework for this study.

These theories consist of social perception,

categorization, attributes and attribution theory, and

impression formation (Lennon & Davis, 1989).

4

Social psychology is the psychological attempt to

explain ways in which individuals are involved in

development of intergroup relations (Doise, 1976).

Within this discipline Kaiser (1984) argues there are two

fundamental approaches, social cognition psychology and

symbolic interactionist psychology.

Social cognition theorizes that individuals try to

make sense of social situations by selecting cues to

explain those situations in which they find themselves

(Kaiser, 1984). The second approach is more of an

interactive view, whereby attention is concentrated not

only on the individual, but upon those interacting with

the individual in the multi-way communication process.

Thus, the point of view of the subject represents one

fundamental difference in approaches. Also, social

cognition emphasizes the individual's thought process,

while symbolic interaction stresses the entire

communication process involving the individual and those

communicating with the individual.

Because this study concentrated on the individual's

perception of clothing cues, the social cognitive

approach appears more appropriate than the interactionist

approach. Consistent with past research, Lennon and

Davis (1989) documented four theoretical framework

suitable for research involving perception and clothing

cues. Under the heading of social cognitive psychology,

5

these four theories include social perception,

categorization, attributes and attribution theory, and

impression formation (Lennon & Davis, 1989). Discussion

of these theories and past research regarding perception

and clothing cues is covered in detail in the next

section.

6

Review of Literature

This section discusses the theories and past

research which form the theoretical foundation for this

study. A social cognitive framework was used consisting

of four theoretical perspectives including: Social

Perception, Categorization, Attributes and Attribution

Theory and Impression Formation.

Social Perception

Social perception research investigates cognitive

perceptions encountered in social situations, with

particular emphasis on variables affecting such

perceptions. Although numerous variables may be

influential, Lennon and Davis (1989) point to three major

variables having some relationship with person perception

and clothing cues research. These three include

perceiver variables, object variables, and situational

variables.

Perceiver variables relate to aspects affecting how

one's social world is perceived (Lennon & Davis, 1989).

Such traits may include physical abilities of perception

such as abilities of sight and hearing, or cognitive

traits affecting perception such as personality, memory,

7

or personal values. Important to note is that

individuals are different, both in their physical

abilities of perception, as well as in their

personalities influencing perception. These differences

not only influence perception characteristics, but the

type and accuracy of social cues perceived.

Although sensitivity to cues may differ from

individual to individual, the general perception process

remains constant in all people. Anderson (1980) points

out that stimuli entering the brain are registered in

sensory memories. Visual information, or ionic memory,

stores tremendous amounts of information, but only for

brief periods of time. Because it is impossible to

process all stimuli encountered, the brain often screens

particular stimuli. Stimuli consistently targeted tends

to occupy the brain's attention the most. Over time

certain stimuli is processed so often that less attention

is required for evaluation of the stimuli. Eventually,

very little cognitive processing is needed to recognize

basic and repetitive forms of the stimuli, enabling an

automatic response (Anderson, 1980).

For example, a person possessing an interest in

different types of leathers used in apparel manufacturing

would have seen enough qualities of leather to recognize

a fine leather simply by looking at it. Anderson (1980)

would argue this is because the individual would have

8

experienced the stimuli (leather) so frequently, that the

brain would automatically register the quality of the

leather from a quick glance. The logic is that

experience of a stimuli forms an automatic response to

that stimuli.

Much of this process involves the concept of schema.

Schema relates to a cognitive system used for

comparisons, where one need not notice all the

differences in objects nor people to tell them apart

(Hochberg, 1968). In essence one compares each object or

face to a schema or prototype, representing a familiar

cue. By noticing particular features, the brain rapidly

identifies the object or individual (Hochberg, 1968).

Hochberg (1968) uses the example of an eye patch in

the story Treasure Island automatically signifying Old

Pew, the pirate. In this example while Old Pew may wear

traditional pirate clothing, his eye patch is a

distinctive characteristic, thus people associate

identification of Old Pew from his eye patch.

Relating schema to person perception and clothing

cues, the brain may be sensitive to visual cues from

repetitive exposure to certain clothing. For example,

people may recognize a logo on a shirt from viewing it so

often, and infer characteristics based on the shirt. For

example, the Polo brand logo could signify a variety of

traits such as high quality, being expensive, and

9

exclusivity to name three. It is the repetitive exposure

to the logo that forms the inferences often associated

with it. The inferences may be from personal

impressions, or guided from social evaluations, such as

images desired from advertising.

Recognizing types of garment styles may also be

associated with schema, such as the repetitive exposure

to blue jeans in our society. The average person would

need little time to study a pair of jeans and form

evaluations as to where one might wear jeans, what

feeling the fabric has, or what type of color make up a

pair of jeans. This ease of evaluation is from

repetitive exposure to jeans, such that a cognitive

evaluation is automatic.

However, the same may not be said for an 18th

century military uniform, which is less commonly

encountered. Because an individual would probably have

had little or no exposure to 18th century military

uniforms, an automatic response would be less likely to

occur. Thus, the individual would need to cognitively

process the stimuli (the uniform) in some detail before

forming an impression.

As Lennon and Davis (1989) point out there has been

little research directly related to perceiver variables

and clothing cues. Rather, research has concentrated on

interpersonal relationship cues such as facial

10

expressions (Hochberg and Galper, 1967; Galper, 1970;

Sorce and Campos, 1974; Yin, 1969) as well as perceiver

variables (Warr & Knapper, 1968).

While limited research has directly related

perceiver variables and clothing cues, the relationship

is important to note. The foundation of person

perception research involves perceiver variables

affecting perception. Without understanding perceiver

variables, variations of perception and clothing cues

research is limited.

The second variable Lennon and Davis (1989) discuss

with respect to person perception and clothing cues is

the concept of object variables. Object variables

involve what is actually perceived by the subjects. As

Lennon and Davis (1989) point out the greatest amount of

research about person perception, clothing cues and

object variables has centered around judgments people

based upon visual characteristics of garments they are

wearing.

Research has investigated clothing cues affecting

perception of credibility of message source (Gibbins &

Schnider, 1980; O'Neal & Lapitsky, 1991), perception of

intelligence (Behling & Williams, 1991), and perception

of social class and social issues (Johnson, Nagasawa, &

Peters, 1977; Lasswell & Parshall, ;Buckley & Roach,

1974) .

11

Lennon and Davis (1989) argue that research in

person perception and clothing cues falls into two

categories: personal traits and attitudes, and evaluative

and behavioral responses to target persons. Clothing

cues often represent the object variables, and

researchers investigate influences on perceptions of

personality traits and behavioral responses.

In general, object variables are very basic.

Clothing cues include clothing and accessories such as

jewelry, glasses, or hats. In the present study, formal

and casual clothing were the stimuli investigated.

The final variable Lennon and Davis (1989) discuss

regarding person perception and clothing cues is

situational variables. This theory predicts that social

perception is context dependent, and thus perception and

inferences made are also context dependent.

Workman and Johnson (1989) conducted a study

involving appropriateness in dress as a reflection of the

employee's personal characteristics and the favoritism

expressed by one's employer. Similarly, Damhorst (1985)

conducted a study relating interpersonal context to

perception of one's relationship and formal and non-

formal business clothing. Damhorst (1985) found male and

female persons wearing suits were described more often as

'higher in rank when their adjacent companion wore casual

clothing.

12

A simple example emphasizing the importance of

context in clothing cues research would be an individual

wearing a baseball uniform in a downtown business

district. Taken out of context, questions would arise

regarding a person wearing a baseball uniform in a

downtown area. However, it would not seem peculiar if

one wore a baseball uniform on a baseball field. Thus,

it is not necessarily the individual's choice in clothing

that raises questions, but rather the context in which

the clothing is worn.

The importance of context in perception and clothing

cues research is founded from the consistency that

different clothing is worn for different occasions.

Context largely represents the appropriateness of

specific clothing for specific situations because society

has developed the concept of fashion. Fashion not only

dictates what type of clothing is worn for different

social occasions, but it also controls the style

differences within clothing categories.

Much of this context dependency relates to

appropriateness and social comfort in a social situation.

Because of this, the cognitive consistency theory is

often associated with context, person perception and

clothing cues research (Kaiser, 1984).

The consistency theory predicts perceivers will be

uncomfortable in social situations if behaviors and roles

13

of individuals encountered are not presented as expected

(Kaiser, 1984). From this dependency of appropriate

behaviors and roles, negative evaluations of personality

traits may exist if clothing worn by the stimulus person

is not appropriate for the specific occasion.

For example, many individuals in the United States

view judges as respectful and serious members of the

community. Therefore it would seem out of character for

a judge to wear a Hawaiian shirt in his or her courtroom.

A judge's role does not fit well with the wearing of a

flamboyant shirt in court, thus peoples' impressions

would be that such behavior is inappropriate.

Some research involving person perception and

clothing cues, with respect to roles and messages has

shown that clothing cues may influence person

perceptions. Kaiser (1984) points to research involving

attire and verbal messages (Knox and Mancuso, 1981), or

clothing and role stereotype (Kerr and Dell, 1976; Giles

and Chavasse, 1975; and Rucker, Harrison, and Vanderlip,

1982). With respect to this research, Kaiser (1984)

discusses that an implicit expectation exists whereby

cues must be consistent with the wearer's roles and

behaviors. If they are not, it is possible that

perceptions of those in question may be negative.

Indeed, the three variables discussed by Lennon and

Davis (1989) are very important to social cognition

14

research. Context is an important variable because

clothing is context dependent, and perceptions of

clothing cues are often affected by the context in which

they are found.

Categorization

A second theory often associated with social

cognition research is categorization. Categorization

allows humans to group objects and events into

configurations so that we may give our world some form of

stability. If we did not categorize, the vast and

diverse stimuli we encounter would be overwhelming.

Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (1956, p.3) point out,

"To categorize is to render discriminably

different things equivalent, to group the

objects and events and people around us into

classes, and to respond to them in terms of

their class membership rather than by their

uniqueness."

Roots of categorization fall under the study of

gestalt psychology and the gestalt principles of

perceptual organization (Anderson, 1980). Gestalt

principles include proximity, similarity, and differences

in relation to cognitive organization. The notion of

proximity implies that elements close together tend to be

15

organized into units (Anderson, 1980). Similarly, these

principles stress that in addition to proximity, the

brain organizes units into similar components of

organization, whereby contrast methods are organized by

unit differences (Anderson, 1980). The basic theory of

gestalt principals poses that the whole is more than the

sum of its parts. That is, whole units are the emergent

properties of the general perception (Anderson, 1980).

Categorization with respect to person perception and

clothing cues research has generally gone farther than

just categorization. That is, studies have investigated

how people make and form general perceptions based on

categorizing. A few researchers have studied

categorization with respect to clothing.

One study sought to investigate how subjects would

group apparel in four categorization tasks (DeLong &

Minshall, 1988). Similarly, Lennon and Davis (1988)

investigated the extent to which category usage differed

in first impressions in which: (a) the researcher

provided the category exemplars, (b) respondents were

asked to indicate the extent to which they used the

categories, and (c) when respondents wrote verbal

descriptions so that actual category usage could be

determined. Buckley (1985) also investigated

categorization with respect to basic levels of dress

categorization.

16

More common with respect to categorization of people

is the concept of stereotyping. Stereotyping is grouping

people into categories based upon traits expressed by

those individuals. In general, visual traits are often

those evaluated first, especially with respect to

strangers because visual cues are often the first to be

available.

In the past the study of stereotyping has emphasized

possible motivational and affective determinants (Adorno,

Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). However,

more recently stereotyping has been integrated into the

discipline of social cognition, emphasizing the cognitive

processes of social categorization, social inference, and

social judgment (Ruble & Ruble, 1980; Taylor, Fiske,

Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978).

Borgida, Locksley, and Brekke (1981) point that two

main questions regarding stereotyping research are often

asked, including: (1) how are social stereotypes formed?

and (2) why do social stereotypes persist even though

many are erroneous? People categorize objects or events

to make sense of their surroundings, so stereotyping is

practiced for the sorting of people into social groups

(Borgida, Locksley, & Brekke, 1981). Studies

investigating stereotyping (Brewer, 1979; and Hamilton &

Gifford, 1976) suggest that the effects of categorization

on perceived similarity of group members may contribute

17

to the tendency to generalize attributes across group

members often characteristic of stereotyping.

The second reason why people continuously stereotype

even though most attributions are erroneous is that one's

stereotypes guide one's social interaction with the

individual stereotyped so as to induce that person to

behave consistently with the stereotype (Snyder & Swann,

1978; Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977; Word, Zanna, &

Cooper, 1974). What this represents is a setting up of

conformity to the stereotyped behavior desired by those

outside the stereotyped group. This practice reduces

uncertainty regarding unfamiliar people, and reinforces

the stereotype.

Hepburn (1979) found that stereotypical behavior is

easier to recall than neutral behavior. Thus, forming

stereotypes represents social categorization for security

and efficiency in social situations. Stereotyping is

also practiced to make evaluations of others easier and

quicker. We group individuals based upon past

experiences and beliefs because it is easier than taking

time to evaluate each individual we encounter.

Although some research has centered around

categorization of clothing, it appears more research

involving person perception and clothing cues has

investigated stereotype behavior based upon clothing

cues.

18

Examples of researchers who have investigated

general personality traits with respect to clothing cues

include Paek, (1986); Douty, (1963); Littrell & Berger,

(1986); and Fiore & De Long, (1984). Indeed, while most

of these studies have investigated general personality

traits, some have centered more closely on specific

characteristics.

For example, Johnson, Nagasawa, and Peters (1977)

investigated perceived sociability using college

students. Stereotypes of sociability were based upon

photograph evaluations of models wearing in-fashion

clothing versus models wearing out-of-fashion clothing.

Results indicated those wearing in-fashion clothing were

perceived to be more sociable.

Other research has investigated other stereotypes in

social status (Lasswell & Parshall, 1961), credibility of

message source (O'Neal & Lapitsky, 1991), perception of

scholastic achievement (Behling & Williams, 1991), and

race (Coleman & Lerch, 1987).

This research has also confirmed that stereotypes

are very common. Further, traits often associated as

positive, such as sociability or high credibility of

message source, have shown correlation with in-fashion

clothing, or clothing appropriate for particular

occasions. Conversely, negative perceptions have

generally existed with rebellious, out-of-fashion, or

19

inappropriate clothing.

Attributes and Attribution Theory

The third theory Lennon and Davis (1989) describe in

the study of social cognition and clothing is attribution

theory. The attributes discussed in attribution theory

are slightly different from the attributes used in

categorization. The first theorizes how individuals

attribute stimuli, while the second represents those

attributes which are categorized. Attribution theory

with respect to person perception and clothing cues

research is first discussed below, followed by

differences between attributes and categories, and

functions of attributes associated in cognition.

Attribution theory relates to the perceived

causality of social behavior (Lennon and Davis, 1989).

In his book, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations,

Heider (1958) points to how humans have needs for the

explanation of events and drawing of conclusions. These

needs are met by explaining behavior as either

dispositional or situational (Heider, 1958).

Dispositional attributes assume the stimulus person is

responsible for outcomes in social interactions with

others, while situational factors focus upon external

forces apart from the stimulus person.

20

Kaiser (1984) relates dispositional attributes and

clothing to an example of a female wearing a seductive

dress to a party. She is responsible for attracting

attention from the males. The key point in dispositional

attributes holds that the stimulus individual has

"responsibility" for his/her behavior.

Kaiser (1984) also summarizes the study of McArthur

and Post (1977) investigating dispositional attributes

and situational attributes with respect to clothing. In

their study, McArthur and Post (1977) found an actor

wearing a shirt with pretentious stripes received

dispositional responses from his evaluators. However, a

stimulus person whose status was derived from wearing

brightly colored shirts, not common to other group

members, appeared to receive attention due to situational

attributes. In short, the difference was based on being

an actor versus a member of the common group.

This concept involving clothing is often seen in the

trickle-up theory of fashion, whereby pretentious

clothing is accepted if worn first by a celebrity, but

found unacceptable if first worn by a common person.

What this study appears to assume is that selection of

apparel cues could influence the attribution processes,

depending how cues are associated with the subject.

Thus far, this paper has discussed aspects of

perceiver variables, categorization, and attribution

21

theory, all of which have similar qualities in building

knowledge about social perception. Some propose there

are really no differences between categories and

attributes (Wyer, 1974). However, with further scrutiny,

one will find there are distinctions between categories

and attributes, as well as between different types of

attributes.

The distinction between categories and attributes is

clearly made by Lingle, Altom, and Medin (1984).

Categories are generally referred to as a grouping of

entities, such as events, objects, people, or even social

situations, whereby these entities are based on one or

more characteristics. Lingle, Altom, and Medin (1984)

further point out that attributes refer to a type of

characteristic of an entity, which could also serve as a

basis for a grouping. Lastly, Lingle, Altom, and Medin

(1984) conclude that those properties represented solely

as attributes tend to be less abundant in cognitive

representation than do properties representing

categories.

To illustrate, a blazer, by itself, forms a category

of dress type. Characteristics such as wool, blue, or

plaid represent particular attributes used in its

perception. Lingle, Altom, and Medin's (1984) belief

that categories make richer cognitive representations is

founded because descriptions made by individuals are more

22

conclusive than attributes allow. For example, one may

see the humor in a lime-green blazer. It is not

necessarily the lime-green color (the attribute) that is

amusing, but rather that it exists on a blazer (the

category).

Attributes help explain events and give reasonable

explanations for questions. In the same manner a

scientist wonders about a condition or event, Heider

(1958) argues that perceivers ask the same questions of

themselves with the hope of answering questions about

their social world.

As Forsyth (1980) discusses, events occurring in our

social world appear to be non-random, due to systematic

regularities which people hope to understand and explain.

Forsyth (1980) agrees that attributional explanations

enable people to make sense of their social world. If it

were not for explanatory uses of attributes, people

would be in a state of constant confusion because nothing

would make sense, and every new stimulus experienced

would represent a complete transformation of thought.

Forsyth (1980) also discusses predictive attributes

and points out that predictive attributes not only allow

individuals to anticipate occurrences, but help gain self

control when such occurrences present themselves. This

predictive technique allows individuals to gain self

confidence in social situations because they can

23

anticipate what events they might experience, and hence,

will be ready to deal with them when they occur.

As Kelley (1971,22) notes,

"The attributor is not simply an attributor,

a seeker after knowledge; his latent goal in

gaining knowledge is that of effective man-

agement of himself and his environment."

In essence, predictive and explanatory attributes

overlap to some degree because as social events present

themselves individuals hope to provide explanations.

However, individuals create explanations because they can

predict from past experiences what is likely to occur in

their social world.

For example, imagine a woman wearing an evening gown

in the middle of a desert. One would predict an

individual in the desert would probably wear light

clothing or even robes of some sort. One would predict

this from past experiences such as viewing desert

dwellers in the news, movies, or history books. The

perception of a woman wearing an evening gown would not

make sense, given past experiences, because one would

assume the dress would be damaged from the harsh

environment, that it would not provide ample protection

from the sun, and finally that its creation was intended

for formal evening occasions and not the desert.

24

However, human nature would dictate that we give some

type of explanation for wearing such apparel, no matter

how odd it may be. It may be a wild explanation such as

the woman was kidnapped, or she's testing the durability

of the dress for the manufacturer. The reason given is

not as important as the need for explanation.

A third attribute function discussed by Forsyth

(1980) is the egocentric function. Similar to the

explanatory function, humans have the need to access

information, and to constantly learn. Often times new

information is contradictory to past learning, and

individuals may use biased processing to maintain self

control. Forsyth (1980) points out that when attributes

are formed to protect or maintain beliefs about oneself

or one's environment, they are done so to fulfill an

egocentric function.

For example, if an individual has been taught to

believe a particular reasoning for an event he or she

would have a difficult time if new research contradicts

his or her initial teaching. Rather that accept this new

paradigm, the individual may elect to use biases of

reasoning to protect his or her ego.

An example could be an individual who judges a woman

wearing a seductive dress to be immoral. The individual

may choose, through an egocentric attribution process, to

omit an explanation such as seductive dresses may be in

25

style, or that the woman simply wishes to express

herself. Attributes may also be biased so as to maintain

self control and self confidence in social situations.

Forsyth (1980) has demonstrated the important

functions attributes provide with respect to social

perception. As Forsyth notes (1980, p. 186):

"This functional approach of using attributes

seems to connect the link between attributions-

a typically psychological social psychology

topic, and social identity- a typically soc-

iological social psychology topic."

Indeed attributes, and attribution theory play

significant roles in social perception research because

they represent final cognitive functioning before an

impression is made. Attributes are the building blocks

for categories because they form the basis for humans

dividing objects into groups and assigning instances to

particular categories (Lingle, Altom, and Medin, 1984).

Consequently, attributes and relationships among them

underline the structure of categories, and form how

categories can be organized and implemented (Lingle,

Altom, and Medin, 1984). Various functions are served by

attribution processes.

26

Impression Formation

Thus far this chapter has discussed three

theoretical perspectives related to person perception and

clothing cues research, including social perception,

categorization, and attributes and attribution theory.

The fourth discussed by Lennon and Davis (1989) is

impression formation.

Lennon and Davis (1989) describe impression

formation as a process whereby diverse bits of

information regarding individuals are integrated into a

general impression. Lennon and Davis (1989) trace this

area of study to the work of Asch (1946).

Asch (1946) discusses the phenomenon of how one is

able to form a general impression of another individual

from a simple glance. In what manner are these

impressions established? Are there lawful principles

regulating their formation? These were the fundamental

questions that led Asch (1946) to research general

impression formation techniques. However, these

questions were not easily explained by the general format

that Asch (1946) described, whereby simple bits of

information regarding individuals were simply integrated.

General impressions may have been developed if those

evaluated were to have simple and unique qualities.

However, Asch (1946) believed such impressions would be

27

more difficult to explain if the subjects had diverse

personalities.

For example, an individual may have rather common

qualities, such as a good sense of humor, a friendly

disposition, and intelligence capabilities. However Asch

(1946) noted that an individual could also exhibit

qualities such as selfishness, mood swings, or intense

tempers. In such cases problems would exist in forming

impressions from such diverse and complicated

individuals. Further, it would be nearly impossible to

predict correct evaluations in all categories because of

the subjects' diverse personality characteristics.

Asch (1946) discussed different theories to explain

impression formation. One of these theories is the

notion that the total impression of an individual is the

sum of several independent impressions (Asch, 1946).

Such a theory is expressed as follows:

Impression = a + b + c + d (Asch, 1946).

While this theory has merit, some researchers argued

in addition to such factors there is a "general

impression" by which a plus or minus direction shifts

evaluation of several traits. The format is the same as

the first except added to the traits is a general

impression affecting each trait (Asch, 1946).

Asch (1946) also discusses a second theory whereby

an impression of the entire person is formed. In this

28

capacity, an individual does not see another person by

this trait or that trait, but rather by the sum of

perceived traits. The impression is the integration of

the parts, implying these qualities form a general

impression of the subject. Common to this theory is the

belief that quick glances of individuals do not give

accurate impressions.

Much of this first impression formation literature

uses the adjective checklist used by Asch (1946). The

method involved was reading to individuals, as list of

adjectives such as cold, assured, persuasive, etc.

Subjects then tried to form impressions of individuals

based upon the adjectives given to them (Asch, 1946).

Several preliminary points made by Asch (1946) were

that normal adults were capable of forming unified

impressions, as well as that individuals make references

to characters and situations not directly mentioned in

the given lists (Asch, 1946). Possibly, people form

descriptions, not only from their actual meanings, but

also by placing the individuals in fictitious situations

and forming characters found in daily social life to help

form general impressions. Finally, just as the subjects

differ in personality, definitions of the adjectives

given also tended to differ (Asch, 1946). The notion is

that each individual has a slightly different connotation

and conception of the meaning of adjectives.

29

The use of basic impression formation with respect

to clothing and behavior has been well founded. Lennon

and Davis (1989) point to research demonstrating the

influence of a single appearance cue on impression

formation (Baron, 1981; Hamid, 1972; Lennon & Miller,

1984, 85; Thornton, 1944).

A detailed example of this is the work of Lennon and

Miller (1984, 1985). They investigated combined effects

of specific appearance cues such as hairstyle, skirt

length, and shoe style on impression formation. The

results indicated that impact of a physical appearance

cue seems to decrease in the presence of similar cues,

but increases in importance in the presence of dissimilar

cues (Lennon & Miller, 1984, 1985).

Past research involving social perception and

clothing has concentrated on two major categories

including personality traits, and references to social

situations. Much research has investigated behavior with

respect to clothing, but the terms perception and

impression represent differences in definition. The

researchers imply that they are interested in perception

or impression formation, however the techniques used are

not consisted with the adjective descriptions commonly

found with Asch's (1946) work. For example, Asch (1946)

provided subjects a list of adjectives and asked the

subjects to choose an adjective that best represented an

30

individual in front of the subjects. Many researchers

recently have used techniques of providing photographs

and drawings, and asking the subjects to rank or describe

individuals based upon impressions in particular contexts

(Littrell & Berger, 1985, 86; Buckley & Roach, 1974;

Nagasawa & Peters, 1977).

Research involving personality traits has covered a

variety of characteristics, most of which has centered on

stereotype characteristics based upon impressions of

clothing cues. For example, research has investigated

perceptions of intelligence (Behling & Williams, 1991),

general personality (Fiore & DeLong, 1984), credibility

of message source (O'Neal & Lapitsky, 1991) and general

perception of individuals (Douty, 1963). While the

methods of obtaining data for this type of research may

have differed over the years, there seems to have been a

consistent pattern of interest in impression formation of

personality traits based upon clothing cues.

Very similar to investigating perceptions of

individuals and clothing worn is the research on

perceptions of individuals in social situations. This

category of research has investigated the perceptions of

individuals in a variety of social situations including

meanings of clothing cues in social context (Damhorst,

1984, 85), impressions of different clothing and their

effect of sociability of individuals (Johnson, Nagasawa,

31

& Peters, 1977), perception of social class (Lasswell &

Parshall, 1961), clothing as a communicator of social and

political attitudes (Buckley & Roach, 1974), and the

importance of clothing on self-esteem among adolescents

(Daters, 1990). Most impression formation research has

involved clothing cues and context.

While research documented in this paper has

primarily concentrated on perceptions of personality

traits based upon clothing cues in social and

interpersonal settings, similar personality traits and

characteristics can be studied as qualities needed in

business environments.

Examples of research investigating perceptions of

clothing in business environments often stresses women in

the work place, such as investigating business dress for

women corporate professionals (Dillon, 1980). Forsythe,

Drake, and Cox (1984) investigated dress as an influence

on the perceptions of management characteristics in

women. Their results appeared to indicate clothing had

both a positive and a significant effect on the

perception of selected personal characteristics

(Forsythe, Drake, and Cox, 1984).

Some of the research involving dress in business

environments has done so with respect to management

abilities and perceived capabilities in interview

situations. For example, Cash (1987) investigated the

32

impact of grooming style on the evaluation of women in

management. Results provided some evidence that aspiring

female managers tend to dress more professionally than do

women who aspire to occupy traditional women working

roles, such as secretaries.

Forsythe (1988) found that masculinity of clothing had a

positive effect on the perception of management

characteristics, as well as favoring of hiring decisions.

Research investigating interviewing environments

seems to indicate similar results to managerial research.

Kerr and Dell (1976) investigated perceived interviewer

expertness and attractiveness with respect to effects of

interviewer behavior and attire, in an interview setting.

Results indicated that only counselor role behavior

significantly affected students' perception of

interviewer attractiveness, while perception of

expertness seemed to have been affected jointly by role

and attire (Kerr and Dell, 1976).

It would seem reasonable that if clothing has an

effect on impression formation of personality traits and

characteristics in social contexts, research with respect

to business contexts is also warranted. In both

instances it appears social situation and organizational

setting play an important role in such research because

much of the investigations appear to be context

dependency of clothing cues.

33

Research Questions

This chapter has discussed the theoretical

frameworks and past research justifying investigations

pertinent to this paper. This chapter has reviewed

literature to support the relationship of clothing cues

to person perception.

There is little doubt of the importance of social

cognition in person perception and clothing cues. The

four theoretical frameworks overviewed for this paper

have legitimate support due to past research, and

consistent findings (Lennon & Davis, 1989). Continued

research involving social cognitive theories and clothing

cues in a variety of contexts is justified.

The research questions for this study were grouped

into three categories of perceived characteristics: Task,

Relationship, and Demographic. Within the three

categories adjectives were selected that represented

qualities of each of the three categories. Judgments of

productivity and compatibility are based upon perceptions

of how employees would perform the tasks required in

business settings, how the employees would perform

interpersonally with customers in business settings, and

employees' social statuses.

34

The Task Category includes adjectives that are

associated with working, or task-oriented roles in

business settings. Various studies have investigated

similar task-related abilities in association to clothing

cues including Behling & Williams, (1991), and Forsythe,

Drake, & Cox, Jr., (1984). The adjectives used for the

Task category include: 1. "Assertive", 2. "Reliable",

3. "Competent", 4. "Disciplined", 5. "Composed", 6.

"Serious", 7. "Punctual", 8. "Innovative", and 9.

"Successful".

Research Question One:

Will customers perceive an employee to possess more

task-oriented abilities in a business setting when the

employee wears formal clothing rather than when the

employee wears casual clothing?

The Relationship Category includes adjectives

associated with abilities in interpersonal communication

in business settings. Several studies have investigated

the influence of clothing on communicative processes.

Relationship ability studies have been conducted by

Buckley & Roach, (1974), and Damhorst, (1985). The

adjectives used for this category include:

1. "Charismatic", 2. "Understanding", 3. "Good

Listener", 4. "Respectable", and 5. "Sociable".

35

Research Question Two:

Will customers perceive an employee to possess more

relationship-oriented abilities in a business setting

when the employee wears formal clothing rather than when

the employee wears casual clothing?

The Demographic Category investigated qualities

associated with perceptions of social status of an

employee. This area has been investigated by Behling &

Williams, (1991), and Lasswell & Parshall, (1961). The

adjectives used for this category include: 1.

"Education", and 2. "Money".

Research Question Three:

Will customers perceive an employee will make a

higher income and have earned higher education levels

when the employee wears formal clothing rather than when

the employee wears casual clothing?

36

Chapter II

Method

This study was undertaken to investigate the

possible influence of clothing cues on personality

characteristics often associated with success in business

environments. The method will be explained in five

sections which follow. They include: design, sample,

stimulus photographs, procedure, manipulation check, and

analysis.

Design

To investigate the possible influence clothing has

on the perceptions of personality characteristics often

associated with success in business, this study used a

test group. The experimental manipulations were two

photographs shown to the group. The two photographs were

identical except for the clothing worn by the models.

The dependent variables were the subjects'

impressions of the two photographs with respect to

personality characteristics often associated with success

in business. See Appendix A, page 73.

37

Sample

Subjects from four Speech Communication classes

comprised the sample. Because they evaluated the

photographs they were termed customers. Students in two

classes viewed photograph A, and the other two classes

viewed photograph B.

A pre-test evaluation was Conducted in an

undergraduate Speech Communication class to determine

what would be considered men's casual clothing and men's

formal clothing. An in-class discussion concluded that

men's casual clothing is clothing such as jeans, t-

shirts, and sweats. Men's formal clothing is a man's

suit, or slacks, blazer, and tie.

The sample group used for this study consisted of

students enrolled in four Speech Communication classes at

Oregon State University, Spring term, 1993. Eighty-four

subjects participated in the study, of which eight were

omitted. Three were omitted because they personally knew

the models used in the photographs, and an additional

five were omitted due to not answering all the questions.

Of the 76 subjects used, 38 were males and 38 were

females. Subjects consisted of 6 Freshmen, 16

Sophomores, 17 Juniors, 36 Seniors, and 1 Graduate

Student. Ages varied from 19 to 48 years with a mean of

22 years.

38

Stimulus Photographs

Two photographs were used in this study for the

stimulus photographs. The two photographs were taken of

the same models from the hip up, wearing two different

garment styles. The photographs represented two garment

styles worn in places of business; one representing a

more casual look, and the second representing a more

formal look.

The garment styles used in the photographs consisted

of one photograph (a) where one model wore'a casual shirt

and jeans, and the other model wore a suit. The other

photograph (b) used the same models, but the models

switched clothing worn in the previous photograph. Both

models stood next to one another, in identical poses, for

both photographs.

Procedure

Collection of the data occurred over three days,

during Spring term at Oregon State University, 1993. All

participation was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential.

Access to the classes was authorized in advance by

the respective professors. The classes were chosen

randomly, and none of the classes were told other classes

were participating in the study. The study was

39

administered at the beginning of a class period.

Subjects were given the questionnaire and instructed to

respond to the photograph (a or b) projected at the front

of the classroom.

Subjects were told this was a thesis study for a

graduate student in the Speech Communication department,

and the study investigated perception. The subjects were

also told that the context of the study was such that

they represented business owners who had authorized

architectural work for a new conference room. The

photograph represented two architects who would be

bidding on the project. The subjects were also told that

the two architects were from different architecture

firms.

As decision makers, the subjects were instructed to

answer the questionnaire based upon their perceptions of

the two architects. The subjects were instructed they

could take as much time as needed, and could view the

photograph for the entire duration of their evaluation.

Administering the study took about 15 minutes per

class, and all questionnaires were administered by the

investigator. Questionnaires were gathered when all

subjects had finished. The questionnaires were placed in

envelopes distinguishing the classes used until the data

'was analyzed.

40

Manipulation Check

Because this study investigated perceptions of

different garment styles, a manipulation check was

administered using the last question in the

questionnaire. The manipulation check consisted of a

question inquiring as to which model shown in each

photograph was wearing the more casual garment style of

the two.

Results indicated that all 76 of the subjects

answered this question correctly, thus none were omitted

for failing to identify differences between casual

clothing and formal clothing.

Analysis

Because this study investigated person perceptions,

two models were used rather than one so that a more

accurate assessment could be made regarding the influence

clothing may have. Two photographs were used, and the

subjects consisted of four small groups, later combined

into two large groups. Identification of these two

groups was based upon which model was dressed formally.

The two models were given the names "Mark" and "John",

thus the two groups were categorized as "Mark's Group"

and "John's Group".

41

Analysis for the research questions was conducted by

grouping questions from the questionnaire into one of the

three categories, either Task, Relationship, or

Demographics. The statistical analysis for each research

question was done item by item by (a) comparing formal

dress for "Mark" and "John", using Chi Square and a

Frequency Table to establish consistency, and, (b) by

comparing formal clothing versus casual clothing using

Chi Square and a Frequency Table. Additional analyses

investigated sex differences for the three categories,

also using Chi Square and a Frequency Table.

42

Chapter III

Results & Discussion

Formal and Casual Clothing Comparison

This chapter presents the results and discussion of

the study. Coverage includes: results, additional

analysis, and discussion.

The first analysis involved comparing perceptions of

characteristics when "Mark" and "John" were both dressed

formally. It was anticipated that there would be little

difference between the models, in that clothing would

have greater influence on perceptions than the models'

facial characteristics. Table 1, page 47 shows that

there were few differences between the model perceptions

of the characteristics with the exception of the

adjectives "Charisma" and "Sociability". These had Chi

Square values of 9.14 and 10.29 respectively ( p<.05 ).

Each adjective used in the study was analyzed to

investigate whether the models' characteristics

influenced perceptions. Perceptions pertaining to all

other adjectives appeared not to be influenced by the

models, so data was then pooled for "Mark" and "John"

when in formal clothing and "Mark" and "John" were

43

dressed in casual clothing

Results

Research Question One asked, "Will customers

perceive an employee to possess more task-oriented

abilities in a business setting when the employee wears

formal clothing rather than when the employee wears

casual clothing?"

The adjectives labeled under the Task Category

included: 1. "Assertive"; 2. "Reliable"; 3.

"Competent"; 4. "Disciplined"; 5. "Composed"; 6.

"Serious"; 7. "Punctual"; 8. "Innovative", and 9.

"Successful".

The data on Table 3, page 49 appears to indicate

that more people perceived the models to poses task-

oriented abilities when wearing formal clothing than when

wearing casual clothing.

As Table 3, page 49 indicates perceptions of eight

of the nine adjectives investigated supported the claim

that formal clothing may have been associated frequently

with the adjectives "Disciplined", "Serious", and

"Punctual". (Please see Chi Square values and Frequency

Table, page 47.) The remaining five adjectives also were

associated with formal dress. (See Table 3, page 49.)

44

The only adjective which did not appear to be linked

with formal was "Innovative". With a Chi Square value of

2.33, it would appear that perceptions of

"Innovativeness" in a business setting were not

associated with formal clothing, but possibly with casual

clothing.

Based upon the results presented however,

"Respondents in the role of customers perceived an

employee to possess more task-oriented abilities when the

employee was wearing formal clothing rather than when the

employee was wearing casual clothing."

Research Question Two asked, "Will customers

perceive an employee to possess more relationship-

oriented abilities in a business setting when the

employee wears formal clothing rather than when employee

wears casual clothing?"

The adjectives labeled in the Relationship Category

included: 1. "Charismatic"; 2. "Understanding"; 3.

"Good Listener"; 4. "Respectable", and 5. "Sociable".

As pointed in Table 1, page 47, the adjectives

"Charismatic" and "Sociable" appeared to be influenced by

factors other than clothing. Because of the influence

the two models appeared to have on perceptions for these

particular adjectives, it must be noted that analysis of

clothing's association with them will be limited in

45

validity.

Table 4, page 50 appears to show some inconsistency

with Chi Square values and results shown in the Frequency

Table for relationship adjectives. For example, the Chi

Square value for "Charismatic" was .44, while the value

for "Respectable" was 549.14. As the means demonstrate,

both of these adjectives were associated with formal

clothing rather than casual clothing. (See Table 4, page

50) However, "Understanding", "Good Listener", and

"Sociable" adjectives showed Chi Square values of 27.50,

15.08, and 32.27 with positive association with casual

clothing (See Frequency Table 4, page 50).

Based upon the results presented it would appear that

both formal clothing, and casual clothing are related to

perceptions of particular relationship-oriented

abilities.

Research Question Three asked, "Will customers

perceive an employee to make a higher income and have

earned higher education levels when the employee wears

formal clothing rather than when the employee wears

casual clothing?"

The adjectives labeled under the Demographic

Category included: 1. "Educated", and 2. "Money".

Table 5, page 51 indicates customers' perceptions

higher status qualities in a business setting were linked

46

more often with formal clothing than casual clothing.

For example, the adjective investigating "Income" showed

a Chi Square value of 1156, and the "Education" adjective

showed a Chi Square value of 682.67 (See also Frequency

Table 5, page 51). According to the means, both were

perceived as more often linked with formal clothing.

Based upon the data presented, it would appear that

Research Question Three could be answered that,

"Respondents in the role of customers perceived an

employee to make more income and have higher education

levels when the employee was wearing formal clothing

rather than when the employee was wearing casual

clothing."

47

Table 1

Chi Square and Frequency Table

for Formal Dress of "Mark" and

"John"

Adjective Chi Square Frequencies "Mark" "John"

Assertive 1.83 35 25

Reliable .81 30 25

Charismatic 9.14 * 27 18

Understanding .40 10 8

Competent 1.02 33 28

Disciplined .03 37 38

Good Listener .31 12 11

Composed .29 32 28

Serious .11 34 35

Punctual .11 35 37

Respectable .03 35 5

Educated .11 36 34

Money .00 36 37

Sociable 10.29 * 14 3

Innovative .25 22 11

Successful .97 37 33

*p<.01

48

Table 2



Casual Clothing

Adjective Chi Square Frequencies formal casual

Assertive 164.57** 62 14

Reliable 64.80** 56 20

Charismatic .44 39 37

Understanding 27.50** 18 58

Competent 225.33** 62 14

Disciplined 5476.00** 75 1

Good Listener 15.08** 23 53

Composed 103.76** 60 16

Serious 1156.00** 71 5

Punctual 1156.00** 72 4

Respectable 549.14** 69 17

Educated 682.67** 71 5

Money 1156.00** 74 2

Sociable 32.27** 16 60

Innovative 2.33 17 59

Successful 450.00** 68 8

*p<.01, **p<.001 df=1

49

Table 3

Chi Square and Freauencv

Table Comparing Formal vs.

Casual Clothing in Task

Category

Adjective

Assertive

Reliable

Competent

Disciplined

Composed

Serious

Punctual

Innovative

Successful

Chi Square

164.57**

64.80**

225.33**

5476.00**

103.76**

1156.00**

1156.00**

2.33

450.00**

Frequencies formal casual

62 14

56 20

62 14

75 1

60 16

71 5

72 4

17 59

68 8

*p<.01, **p<.001 df=1

50

Table 4


Comparing Formal

vs. Casual Clothing in

Relationship Category

Adjective

Charismatic

Understanding

Good Listener

Respectable

Sociable

Chi Square

.44

27.50**

15.08**

549.14**

32.27**

Freauencies formal casual

39 37

18 58

23 53

69 7

16 60

*p<.01, **p<.001 df=1

51

Table 5



Casual Clothing in

Demographic Category

Adjective Chi Square

Educated 682.67**

Money 1156.00**

*p<.01, **p<.001 df=1

Frequencies formal casual

71 5

74 2

52

Table 6



Casual Clothing by Sex

Adjective Chi Square Frequencies (formal) (casual)

male female male female

Assertive 1.38 33 29 5 9

Reliable 2.96 25 31 13 7

Competent 0.00 22 17 16 21

Disciplined 1.02 11 7 27 31

Composed 0.00 31 31 7 7

Serious 1.92 38 37 0 1

Punctual 1.04 10 13 28 38

Innovative .06 30 30 8 8

Successful 0.00 34 37 4 1

Charismatic 1.09 35 37 3 1

Understanding 1.14 33 36 3 2

Good Listener .54 36 35 2 3

Respectable 1.40 38 36 0 2

Sociable .26 7 9 31 29

Educated .22 8 9 30 32

Money .04 34 34 4 4

df=1

53

Additional Analysis

Additional analysis was conducted to investigate sex

differences with respect to perceptions of the research

question categories. Since both the models were male,

the effect of respondent sex on perceptions of the

adjectives was analyzed. The following was investigated

using Chi Square Analysis.

Sex Differences for Task Category

The adjectives listed under the Task Category

included: 1. "Assertive"; 2. "Reliable"; 3.

"Competent"; 4. "Disciplined"; 5. "Composed"; 6.

"Serious"; 7. "Punctual"; 8. "Innovative"; and 9.

"Successful".

Table 6, page 52 indicates that apparently there was

no significant difference between males and females with

respect to perceptions of formal and casual dress

indicating task characteristics. The Frequency Table,

Table 6, page 52 shows there was no significant

difference between males and females.

54

Sex Differences for

Relationship Category

The adjectives listed under the Relationship

Category included: 1. "Charismatic"; 2. "Understanding";

3. "Good Listener"; 4. "Respectable"; and 5. "Sociable".

Results from Table 6, page 52 show that, as with the

Task Category, there were no significant Chi Square

values, nor Frequency values when comparing males and

females perceptions of the Relationship Category

adjectives.

Sex Differences for

Demographic Category

The adjectives representing the Demographic Category

included: 1. "Education"; and 2. "Money" (Table 6, page

52). As Table 6, page 52 shows, males and females did

not differ in their perceptions of these adjectives.

55

Discussion

This section poses possible reasons why subjects

responded to the research questions the ways in which

they did. It also discusses, compares, and contrasts the

three research questions, and their results.

Research Question One

The first research question investigated perceptions

of task-oriented abilities in a business setting.

Results appeared to indicate that more people perceived

the model to poses more task-oriented abilities more

often when wearing formal clothing than when wearing

casual clothing in a business setting. One possible

reason for this phenomenon could be that businesses have

traditionally been institutions requiring more formal

. clothing, such as business suits. This stereotype could

have possibly affected subjects' perceptions because they

recognized suits to be associated with businesses. In

addition to this association is also the stereotype that

"clean cut" individuals are more productive and more work

conscious than those who are more casual in appearance.

The means on the Table demonstrate two of the

adjectives, "Reliable" and "Punctual" are task abilities

which relate to a time frame. It would seem likely that

56

the Chi Square values would be very similar, but this was

not the case. "Reliable" had a Chi Square value of only

64.80, where as "Punctual" had a Chi Square value of

1156 (See also Frequency Table, Table 3, page 49.

Discipline may relate to management of time.

"Disciplined" showed the highest difference between means

and had the highest Chi Square value of 5476. Perhaps

the perception of the subjects was that the suit

portrayed an image of successful time organization.

Although some adjectives had higher means values than

others, it must be stressed that all, with the exception

of "Innovativeness" were related more often with formal

clothing. Perhaps the reason "Innovativeness" was not

significantly related to formal dress was that it

represents a creative ability more than other pure task

abilities.

It did appear females perceived task-oriented

abilities to be more apparent when the models were

dressed formally than the males did. However, three of

the adjectives: "Competent", "Composed", and "Successful"

were selected equally often by males and females.

57

Research Question Two

The results indicated that neither formal, nor

casual clothing worn by an employee in a business setting

appeared to influence people's perceptions of

relationship-oriented abilities. Again, it must be

pointed out that the models did appear to have some

influence on perceptions of "Charisma" and "Sociability"

in addition to their formal and casual clothing (Table 1,

page 47). However, what seems interesting is although

the models may have had influence, males and females had

very similar perceptions of the two adjectives. What

this appears to represent is that while the models may

have had some influence on perceptions of these two

adjectives, the influence had the same effect on both

sexes. Even more interesting is that more individuals of

both sexes perceived "Sociable" to be associated with

casual clothing. This is consistent with research by

Johnson Nagasawa and Peters (1977) who found in fashion

clothing was judged to be linked with sociability by

college students. Thus, not only did more males and

females perceive the same model influences, but more both

perceived "Sociability" to be associated with casual

clothing. Perhaps this was because being sociable,

friendly, and approachable may be more consistent with a

casual style and casual dress.

58

"Understanding" and "Good Listening" abilities were

also significantly associated with casual clothing by

more individuals than with formal clothing, and were

perceived very similarly by both sexes. The exception to

most adjectives was "Respectable" which had a Chi Square

value of 549.14 for formal clothing. Both males and

females had similar perceptions of "Respectability". It

may be that respectability correlates with a more formal,

business kind of relationship and appearance.

The Relationship Category was the one of the three

in which no trends for clothing and attribution of

characteristics emerged. Perhaps the models were a

factor? Perhaps some perceived a formally dressed,

sophisticated person to be charismatic (as a politician

is charismatic, for example), while others felt a

casually dressed person had more of a wider appeal with

the average person. Perceptions of "Understanding" and

"Good Listener" qualities were more often perceived with

casual clothing, while "Respectable" was more often

perceived with formal clothing. It could be that

"Respectable" could be more of an impression

characteristic, where an individual gains respect from

accomplishment rather than from how he or she interacts

with other individuals.

It would appear that some Relationship

characteristics may be tied to formal dress and others to

59

casual clothing cues. It also may be that the

categorization of the task and relationship adjectives

may not be appropriate. This will be discussed later.

Research Ouestion Three

More subject group members overwhelmingly perceived

higher education and higher income levels when the

employee wore formal clothing than when he wore casual

clothing. There was also very little difference between

males and females in their perceptions. "Education"

differences were only separated by a Chi Square value of

.22, while "Income" was only separated by .04. Clearly,

not only more males and females perceive "Education" and

"Income" to be greatly influenced when wearing formal

clothing than when wearing casual clothing, but they did

so to nearly the same degree. This is expected given the

research showing a positive association between

professional clothing and social status Lasswell &

Parshall, 1961) .

Understanding clothing's influence on income could

be rationalized from the standpoint that formal clothing

is often perceived as more expensive than casual

clothing. Thus, the individual wearing nicer, and more

expensive, clothing would appear to make more money than

a more casually dressed individual.

60

The notion could be the same with respect to

education levels because of the stereotype of the "white

collar" worker and the "blue collar" worker. In this

study's case, the more formally dressed model wore a

white-collared shirt, and the casually dressed model wore

a blue-collared shirt. It could be hypothesized that

this stereotype could influence perceptions of education

levels too because an individual wearing a more expensive

garment would have a higher paying job, associated with

higher education levels.

Perhaps a point of note is the fact that perceptions

of education levels and income levels is very context

dependent. The example of athletes who may have not gone

to college, yet earn millions of dollars per year

supports this. Similarly, few rock stars wear suits, yet

many are quite wealthy. It would seem that the context

visioned in the minds of the subjects is important to

investigate because education nor income are always

associated with more formal clothing. However, in this

study's context of a business atmosphere, it would appear

clothing is very much influenced by the context.

61

Chapter IV

Implications

This section discusses the implications of this

study, including: applied implications, limitations of

the study, and future research recommendations.

Applied Implications

This study was conducted to investigate possible

influences of clothing on perceptions, and also to apply

the findings to practical uses in business settings. The

three research questions dealt with facets of

communication in businesses that exist every day. Tasks

must be completed in business, and customers must form

impressions regarding the abilities of employees to

perform the tasks. Customers must also deal with

employees of businesses on interpersonal levels; thus it

is important to know how customers feel towards

employees' styles of interpersonal communication.

Finally, businesses are often concerned with their image

in the customers' "eyes", and two positive images sought

are profitability and employees who are knowledgeable.

This study appears to support the notion that

customers associated many favorable perceptions of

62

employees when the employees are dressed formally. This

would especially appear to be true for more conservative

institutions, such as banks. Corporate tasks often

represent the more serious or formal nature of business,

thus it would seem logical that customers would prefer

employees to look and act seriously in the tasks they

seek to complete.

The other side of business tends to be one where

employees must communicate with customers. This study

investigated whether formal clothing or casual clothing

would be preferred by customers, but this study found no

clear correlation between clothing and perceptions of

good interpersonal skills. However, individuals

perceived good listening skills when employees dressed

casually. The fact that the subjects used for this study

were college students, and dressed casually, may point

out that individuals who must deal interpersonally with

others may feel more comfortable if the others look

similar to themselves. From a practical perspective,

perhaps dressing similarly to one's customers is a good

policy for building rapport, and making the customer feel

more comfortable.

Results showed that more people associated formal

clothing with perceptions of positive demographic facets,

such as education and income. This could be useful

information for business owners because every business

63

seeks to have a positive image, and these results would

seem to indicate that formal clothing could portray an

image of higher education levels and higher income

levels.

The results of this study are consistent with other

past research. Research investigating professionalism

and abilities in the work place has traditionally shown

that perceptions of formal clothing have a positive

correlation with such values as intelligence,

disposition, and upstanding community values to name

three (Cash, 1985; Dillon, 1980; Forsythe, 1988; and Kerr

& Dell, 1976).

Other research has investigated how clothing cues

affect perceptions of the individuals (Douty, 1963; Fiore

& DeLong, 1984; and Johnson, Nagasawa, & Peters, 1977).

It is the particular categories of characteristics and

their correlation with formal and casual dress that this

study sought to investigate, not the entire quality of

the person.

Limitations of the Study

Any study has some limitations, and this study is

certainly no exception. One limitation of this study was

the wording of the questions in the questionnaire. The

64

instructions asked the subjects to choose one model of

the two, thus subjects were forced to choose only one

model per question. A Likert-type scale would have

allowed subjects to express degree of differences in

opinion, and an open-ended questionnaire would have

allowed subjects to express their verbal perceptions of

the models. This change in questionnaire could have

influenced the results because the varying of degree

between models would be more revealing statistically.

Additionally, giving subjects the opportunity to add

additional adjectives they felt would belong in the

categories, and delete ones that they thought should be

omitted would have increased validity.

Another limitation was having only two models.

Perhaps an ideal study would be to have as many models as

possible. This would have decreased the problem of

having to choose "this" model or "that" model. In this

scenario the subject could choose from several models to

better represent his or her opinion.

The results of the adjectives for the relationship

category were mixed. It may be that one limitation in

this section was due to the particular choice of

adjectives listed. Those included were: 1.

"Charismatic", 2. "Understanding", 3. "Good Listener", 4.

'"Respectable", and 5. "Sociable". Charismatic people may

not be judged so from appearance, but rather how they are

65

assumed to come across with their peers. That is, if

one's peers are dressed a particular way, perhaps the

individual appeals to them more in a leadership role.

For example, eccentric individuals do not always dress

formally, such as Charles Manson or Bob Dylon. Yet,

these individuals were charismatic in their own way.

Much like "charismatic" could have different meaning for

individuals. "Respectable" may also have different

meanings. Respect was defined as a quality of the

relationship; a perception of a partner's credibility and

trust. It could also be expected that respectable people

would seem very dapper and well groomed. It could be

possible that "Respectable" is more of a task-oriented

adjective rather than a relationship-oriented one in that

people may respect someone for their achievements rather

than how they relate to others.

It may be that the definition of the adjectives is

equally as important as deciding what type of clothing is

considered formal and what is considered casual. This is

something that may need to be determined before such a

similar study is undertaken in the future.

Future Research Recommendations

Perhaps the most interesting facet of this study was

the inconsistency of type of clothing and perceptions of

66

relationship-oriented abilities. Investigation of

clothing's influence in interpersonal communication, in a

variety of contexts, would be a good starting point for

future research.

Since this study used male models for the

photographs, it would also be interesting to study

perceptions in businesses settings using females, or even

males and females in the same business setting. This

would be practical because women are entering the work

force in large numbers.

It would also be interesting to see how varying

types of formal and casual clothing would be viewed.

This study looked at two styles of clothing. It may be

that different types of formal and casual clothing would

show different results. It would also be interesting to

poll the same subject group ten years later to see if

they still perceived the employee the same way they did

earlier.

Indeed, more research must be made to further

investigate how clothing may have influence in

perceptions of individuals. It would seem that now more

diverse styles of clothing are worn in the United States,

due to different cultural influences, researchers will

need to investigate how clothing affects society and what

67

role clothing may have for future generations in this

country.

68

Bibliography

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.

Anderson, J.R. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York.

Asch, S.E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 41, 258-290.

Baron, R.A. (1981). Olfaction and human social behavior: Effects of a pleasant scent on attraction and social perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 611-616.

Behling, D.U., & Williams, E.A. (1991). Influence of dress on perception of intellegence and expectations of scholastic achievement. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9(4), 1-7.

Bergida E., Locksley A., & Brekke N. (1981). Social stereotypes and social judgment. In Cantor, N. & Kihlstrom, J.F. (Ed), Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction.

Brewer, M.B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.

Bruner, J.S., Goodnow, J., & Austin, G.A. (1956). A Study of Thinking. Wiley: New York.

Buckley, H.M. (1984, 85). Toward an operational definition of dress. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 3(2), 1-10.

Buckley, H.M., & Roach, M.E. (1974). Clothing as a non-verbal communicator of social and political attitudes. Home Economics Research Journal, 3, 94-102.

Cash, T.F. (1985). The impact of grooming style on the evaluation of women in management. In M.R. Solomon (Ed.), The Psychology of Fashion (pp. 343-355). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Damhorst, M.L. (1984-1985). Meanings of clothing cues in social context. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 3(2), 39-48.

69

Daters, C.M. (1990). Importance of clothing and self- esteem among adolescents. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(3), 45-50.

DeLong, M.R., & Minshall, B.C. (1988). Categorization of forms of dress. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 6(4), 13-19.

Dillon, L.S. (1980). Business dress for women corporate professionals. Home Economics Research Journal, 9, 124-129.

Doise, W. (1976). Groups and individuals: explanations in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Douty, H.I. (1963). Influence of clothing on the perception of persons. Journal of Home Economics, 55, 197-201.

Fiore, A.M., & DeLong, M. (1984). Use of apparel as cues to perception of personality. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 267-274.

Forsyth, D.R. (1980). The functions of attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 184-189.

Forsythe, S.M. (1988). Effect of clothing masculinity on perceptions of managerial traits: Does gender of the perceiver make a difference?. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, (6), #2, 10-16.

Forsythe, S.M., Drake, M.F., & Cox, Jr., C.A. (1984). Dress as an influence on the perceptions of management characteristics in women. Home Economics Research Journal, (13), 2, 112-121.

Galper, R.E. (1970). Recognition of faces in photographic negative. Psychonomic Science, 19, 207-208.

Gibbins, K., & Schneider, A. (1980). Meaning of garments: Relation between impression of an outfit and the message carried by its component garments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 287-291.

Giles, H., & Chavasse, W. (1975). Communication length as a function of dress style and social status. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 961-962.

70

Hamid, P.N. (1972). Some effects of dress cues on obser-vational accuracy, a perceptual estimate, and impression formation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 86, 279-289.

Hamilton, D.L., & Gifford, R.K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive bases of stereo-typic judgements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392-407.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hepburn, C. (1979). Availability as a function of sex association: Implications for the maintenance of sex stereotypes. Unpublished manuscript, New York University.

Hochberg, J.E. (1968). Perception. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hochberg, J.E., & Galper, R.E. (1967). Recognition of faces: I. An exploratory study. Psychonomic Science, 9, 619-620.

Johnson, B., Nagasawa, R., & Peters, K. (1977). Clothing style differences: Their effect on impressions of sociability. Home Economics Research Journal, 6, 58-63.

Kaiser, S.B. (1984). Toward a contextual social psychology of clothing: A synthesis of symbolic interactionist and cognitive theoretical perspectives. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 2, 1-8.

Kelley, H.H. (1971). Attribution in Social Interaction. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.

Kerr, B.A., & Dell, D.M. (1976). Perceived interviewer expertness and attrativeness: Effects of interviewer behavior and attire and interview setting. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 553-556.

Knox, L.A., & Mancuso, J.C. (1981). Incongruities in self-presentations and judgements about people. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 843-852.

Lasswell, T.E., & Parshall, P.F. (1961). The perception of social class from photographs. Sociology and Social Research, 45, 407-414.

71

Lennon, S.J., & Davis, L.L. (1989). Clothing and human behavior from a social cognitve framework, Part I: Theoretical perspectives. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 7(4), 41-48.

Lennon, S.J., & Davis, L.L. (1989). Categorization in first impressions. The Journal of Psychology, 123(5), 439-446.

Lennon, S.J., & Miller, F.G. (1984-1985). Attire, physical appearance, and first impressions: More is less. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 3(1), 1-8

Lingle, J.H., Altom, M.W., & Medin, D.L. (1984). Of cabbages and kings: Assessing the extendibility of natual object concept models to social things. In Wyer, R.S., Jr. & Srull, T.K. (Ed), Handbook of Social Cognition.

Littrell, M.A., & Berger, E.A. (1985-1986). Perceiver's occupation and client's grooming: Influence on person perception. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 4(2), 48-55.

McArthur, L.Z., & Post, D.L. (1977): Figural emphasis and person perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 520-535.

Myers, G.E., & Myers, M.T. (1980). The Dynamics of Human Communication: A Labroratory Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

O'Neal, G.S., & Lapitsky, M. (1991). Effects of clothing as nonverbal communication on credibility of the message source. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9(3), 28-34.

Paek, S. (1986). Effect of garment style on the perception of personal traits. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 5, 10-16.

Ruble, D.N., & Ruble, T.L. (1980). Sex stereotypes. In A.G. Miller (Ed.), In the Eye of the Beholder: Contemporary Issues in Stereotyping. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Rucker, M.H., Harrison, A., & Vanderlip, N. (1982). Personalization of cover letters in mail surveys: The effects of similarilty and consistency of cues on response rates. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Sacramento, Calif.

72

Snyder, M., & Swann, W.B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing process in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202-1212.

Snyder, M., Tanke, E.D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal Behavior: On the self- fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.

Source, J.F., & Campos, J.J. (1974). The role of expression in the recognition of a face. Ameriacan Journal of Psychology, 87, 71-82.

Taylor, S .E., Fiske, S., Etcoff, N., & Ruderman, A. (1978) Categorical and contextual bases of person .

memory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778-793.

Thornton, G.R. (1943). The effect upon judgements on personality traits of varying a single factor in a photograph. The Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 127-148.

Warr, P.B, and Knapper, C. (1968). The Perception of People and Events. New York: John Wiley.

Word, C.O., Zanna, M.P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109-120.

Workman, J.E., & Johnson, K.K.P. (1989). The role of clothing in extended inferences. Home Economics Research Journal, 18(2), 164-168.

Wyer, T.S. (1974). Changes in meaning and halo effects in personality impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 829-835.

Yin, R. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141-145.

APPENDIX

73

Appendix A: Research Questionnaire

This study is part of thesis research for a Masters Program. Your response will be anonymous and confidential. Your participation is voluntary. Thank you for your cooperation in making this study possible. If you have any questions about the study, contact David Mills, graduate student, in the department of Speech Communication.

Thank you for participating in this study. Please read the instructions and answer the questions on the next two pages.

74

Imagine you are an owner of a small business. You have placed an employee in charge of converting an old employee lounge into an impressive conference room. The project will require extensive architecture work. Your employee has narrowed the selection of architecture firms to two. Today you are meeting with the architects from the two firms for the first time. This meeting will help you decide between John's firm or Mark's firm.

Please check ONE name per question, based upon your first impressions of John and Mark.

1. Who appears more assertive' John or Mark

2. Who appears more reliable' John or Mark

3. Who appears more charismatic' John or Mark

4. Who appears more understanding?..John or Mark

5. Who appears more competent' John or Mark

6. Who appears more disciplined' John or Mark

7. Who appears the better listener?.John or Mark

8. Who appears more composed' John or Mark

9. Who takes work more seriously?...John or Mark

10. Who appears more punctual' John or Mark

11. Who appears more respectable' John or Mark

12. Who appears to be more educated?.John or Mark

13. Who make more money' John or Mark

14. Who appears more sociable' John or Mark

15. Who appears more innovative' John or Mark

16. Who appears more successful' John or Mark

17. Who is dressed more casual' John or Mark

75

Please respond to the following items.

Male Female

Age

Major

Circle one:

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Other

If "Other" please specify

Do you know either of the models shown in the photograph? yes no

If "yes" please explain

Thank you, please turn your packet over on your desk.

an abstract of the thesis of interdisciplinary studies in

Documents